Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Anyone have strong views about UV filters?
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Sep 21, 2019 14:34:33   #
Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 14:43:58   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (show quote)


Your title is misleading. You're not asking for views on UV filters, you're asking about UV filters on specific equipment.
UV filters were widely used on film cameras, but not so much on digital cameras. I have never heard of chromatic aberration on a digital camera caused by not having a UV filter on.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 14:44:20   #
Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
Sorry about that - hit the wrong key trying to indent the quote.
Anyway, here is my question. I have always put a UV filter on my lenses, both for physical and for chromatic protection (sic.). I recently acquired a Zuiko 14-150 mm, as a general purpose lens, and my first instinct was to purchase a UV filter for same. It would now appear that I am doubling up on the UV protection, at least as far as spectral compensation is concerned. Does anyone here care to add to this conversation? I am a little confused, and I also don't quite understand what is inelegant about an add-on filter. Furthermore, where in the body of my E-M10 MkII is this mysterious UV filter located?

Reply
 
 
Sep 21, 2019 14:45:21   #
Bill P
 
I know this could be possible, but I also know that the internet employs no fact checkers. How can this be confirmed?

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 14:45:30   #
Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
Sorry Mac, as you can tell, I wasn't finished.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 14:56:47   #
BebuLamar
 
I don't think the sensor is sensitive to UV light. The imaging sensor is very sensitive to IR(so much so that it always has an IR filter) but not UV.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 15:01:51   #
JohnR Loc: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 
As far as I know, ANY glass cuts down the amount of UV passing through it. The lens itself with its many elements is already a UV filter so putting another filter in front of it is an exercise in futility as far as UV is concerned. Now as a protection for the front element of the lens then thats a different thing altogether - good idea IMHO

Reply
 
 
Sep 21, 2019 15:45:04   #
Fotomacher Loc: Toronto
 
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (show quote)


I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but after many years of using UV/protection filters (only B+W or Heliopan) on my pro quality Nikon and Olympus lenses, I realized that I was putting yet another piece of glass on the lens and one that was not optimized for maximum IQ. I bought my first SLR in 1976 and my first DSLR in 2000 and have had many mishaps but never damaged the front element of any lens. So now I shoot naked and raw. (Not me, the camera!) I still use a protection filter but only when I’m in blowing sand or misty waterfalls. PS- film was sensitive to UV; digital sensors not really.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 16:26:53   #
Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
Fotomacher wrote:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but after many years of using UV/protection filters (only B+W or Heliopan) on my pro quality Nikon and Olympus lenses, I realized that I was putting yet another piece of glass on the lens and one that was not optimized for maximum IQ. I bought my first SLR in 1976 and my first DSLR in 2000 and have had many mishaps but never damaged the front element of any lens. So now I shoot naked and raw. (Not me, the camera!) I still use a protection filter but only when I’m in blowing sand or misty waterfalls. PS- film was sensitive to UV; digital sensors not really.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but after ... (show quote)


Thanks for this. Like most of the other respondents, you seem to know exactly what my problem is, and the solution. So what concerns me now is the readiness of camera retailers to sell these filters without so much as a glancing question as to their suitability or use. Oh well, I guess they are in business to make sales, so buyer beware! My thanks again to all who wrote on this issue - I love this site, and the education it is giving me. UV filters are now consigned to the scrap heap.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 16:48:35   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Those evil evil evil camera retailers, always so willing to free the novice photographer of their hard-earned money. Thankfully, the good and true UHH experts are here to set the record straight.

If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 17:08:36   #
Stardust Loc: Central Illinois
 
As stated UV filters are not necessary for a DSLR unless used for "protection". I find my lens hood does the same thing.

Reply
 
 
Sep 21, 2019 17:28:51   #
Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 
Both excellent points.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 18:03:58   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
This filter/no filter for protection debate has raged as long as I’ve been reading this forum, but lots do agree that a clear glass filter is appropriate in a dirty, sandy or wet environment, especially if the wind is blowing. Also some weather rated lenses do require a filter to complete the weather sealing. There have also been conflicting reports as to whether you can see the difference with and without. I have seen comments from some very knowledgeable members that certain lens (in particular the Canon 100-400L) are visibly degraded by a filter. In any event, while a UV filter was the de facto standard in the film era when film was sensitive to UV, it is not an improvement over a clear glass filter on a DSLR. Personally, I would not put a poor quality filter of any kind on a high quality lens.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 18:14:21   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo in the on-line Wirecutter blog.
"There's another cross-brand issue we’ve learned about recently: built-in UV filters. Panasonic puts the filter in their camera bodies while Olympus places it in the lens. If you use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body, there's no UV filter, so in some circumstances, you may get chromatic aberration (purple fringes along high-contrast edges). This can be fixed by adding a UV filter to the front of the lens, but that’s an inelegant workaround.
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (show quote)


I'm pretty sure that UV filters have nothing to do with chromatic aberration. CA is a failure of the lens formula to properly focus colors at the same plane. UV filters have little to no effect on this. Achromat or achromatic lens formulas do a great job at minimizing CA.

Reply
Sep 21, 2019 19:02:35   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Gene51 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that UV filters have nothing to do with chromatic aberration. CA is a failure of the lens formula to properly focus colors at the same plane. UV filters have little to no effect on this. Achromat or achromatic lens formulas do a great job at minimizing CA.


👍👍

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.